When a company is facing short term financial difficulties the directors or shareholders may decide to make a loan to the company to pay wages.
In this two part guide we will be looking at issues that frequently arise when considering whether a professional indemnity policy responds to a claim against a construction professional.
In Part 1 we consider whether there is cover. In particular:
- Prior claims – when will a “new” claim fall within an existing notification?
- The obligation to notify circumstances
- Aggregation
- Insolvency of the Insured
Prior claims
Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.
When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.
For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.
Earlier this year, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published its consultation on the second PPF Levy Triennium (2015/16 to 2017/18) which proposed wholesale changes to the measure of insolvency risk and significant changes in respect of contingent assets and the PPF’s treatment of asset-backed contributions.
As we await the outcome of the consultation, employers and trustees may find a summary of the proposals helpful in trying to gauge how they could impact their scheme’s PPF levy.
The PPF-specific insolvency risk model
A recent Victorian case has worrying implications for financiers and creditors.
A decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Vasudevan v Becon Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 14 has the potential to significantly broaden the power of a liquidator to attack a company transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) where there are ‘indirect benefits’ to a director or close associate of a director of the company.
Obtain advice before you lodge a proof of debt or vote in a liquidation
Secured creditors should remember that submitting a proof of debt and voting in a liquidation may result in the loss of their security if they get it wrong.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered a timely reminder to secured creditors of a company in liquidation, where the secured creditor lost its security because it submitted a proof of debt for the full amount of its debt and voted on a poll at a creditor’s meeting for its full debt.
Liquidators are commonly appointed to a company where, prior to liquidation the company was a trustee of a trust. Often when the liquidators are appointed, the company has ceased to be the trustee and a replacement trustee has not been appointed.
In these circumstances, the company in liquidation is a bare trustee in relation to the trust assets and the liquidator will assume this role until a replacement trustee is appointed. Often a replacement trustee is not appointed.
Does the liquidator as bare trustee have a power to sell trust assets?
Secured creditors should not allow a liquidator to sell a secured asset without first:
If your terms of trade documents don’t have the correct provisions, you can lose goods supplied to a customer that becomes insolvent, even though you may have title to the goods.
A recent Supreme Court decision highlights the need for retention of title suppliers to have adequate terms of trade documents and to register security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to avoid losing assets if a customer becomes insolvent.
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Game it is necessary to consider the effect of the court’s decision on the treatment of rents in administration and by analogy liquidation – and the potential consequences of that change.
What types of insolvency does the decision affect?
The Court of Appeal’s decision explicitly states that it is applicable as to the treatment of rents in both administration and liquidation.
What about existing cases?